The 4 Ways to Choose Your Next Game

When your group is ready to start a new game, there are a numbers of ways to handle deciding what to play. By far the most common approach I’ve seen is this one: The GM says, “I’m going to run this game,” and the rest of the group says, “Okay” (or sometimes, “No thanks, we’re going to go play World of Warcraft”).

There are some obvious downsides to this approach, though — so let’s look at the 4 ways to choose your next game (and there really are only 4 ways!), and then ask an open question: How does your group tackle this?

This list assumes that you’re not in the market for a new group — in other words, you want to start up a new game with your regular group. (Things are a bit different if you want to GM, but don’t have any players. In that situation, joining another group and waiting for your chance to GM, or picking a game and looking for folks who want to play it, are the two best approaches.)

1. I’m going to run this.

Pro: Because GMing requires a pretty large investment of time and effort, the GM who simply picks a game she’s interested in is automatically going to be pretty stoked about running it.

Con: Even the best-run game won’t stay fun for very long if the players aren’t also invested in it. If the GM just chooses a game, 99% of the time at least one player won’t be all that into it — which is a bad way to start things off. (I’ve found that many players are reluctant to express strong preferences about what they want to play, partly because this approach — the GM choosing the game — is so common.)

2. What do you want to play?

Pro: The whole group decides, as a group, what they’re most interested in. This can result in good buy-in from everyone, rather than each person having dramatically different levels of interest (which can ultimately kill a game).

Con: This method can take forever, and I’ve found that not everyone wants this much control over the games they play. (I’ve got an anecdote about my experience with this approach, which I’ll save for the end of the post.)

3. Pick one of these games.

Pro: Giving your players a list of games to choose from is a pretty good middle ground: It’s more structured than the second approach (throwing the field wide open), and less rigid than the first one (picking one game and leaving it at that).

Con: Unfortunately, this method often shares the downsides of both of the first two approaches. Sometimes, it’s also used to provide the illusion of choice: The GM has a game in mind, but doesn’t want to look dictatorial. If you have a strong interest, voice it rather than trying to obscure it.

4. Let’s play what we always play.

Pro: If your group has been playing one game for years, starting up a new campaign using those rules is just fine. As long as everyone is happy with the game, there’s really no downside.

Con: It’s good to try new things, and while there’s nothing wrong with playing one game a lot more often than anything else, it can lead to stagnation in your group. (A recent post, Martin’s Maxims for GMs, goes into more detail about this issue.)

(Technically, there’s a fifth approach as well: Throw darts. You grab a game off the shelf at random, and you play that. I can’t see this working well except with very specific groups, or for extremely short games (a session or two of experimentation). For that reason, I left it off the list.)

This post is very topical for me right now, because my group is trying to choose not one but two new games (to play on alternating weeks). We started out with approach #2, which has now morphed into approach #3. Method #1 was never on the table, because we’ve all had a lot of experience with groups that don’t have player buy-in, and since we’re in the mood for something different, method #4 also wasn’t an option.

We’ve pretty much got things sorted out, although it has taken a long time (method #2), and I think we’re on track to start up two new games with a high level of group investment in both of them.

When I first moved to Utah, though, we tried a different approach: the weighted list. This is a version of method #2 — everyone writes down X choices, and ranks them from, say, 1 to 5. It’s a geeky way to solve a geeky problem, and although it took a couple of hours we actually arrived at a surprising result (Birthright) that everyone was happy with.

At which point, naturally, one of our players said, “Wait — we’re playing every Saturday? I can’t play every Saturday. I can do twice a month, tops, and it won’t be the same days every month.” Things pretty much fell apart at that point, and a year later the weighted list is still an in-joke with my group — and a perfect example of method #2’s tendency to take forever.

Personally, methods #2 and #3 are my favorites — although I’ve tried all four at one point or another. I need to be heavily invested in the games that I run or I lose interest, and I like my players to be as excited about them as I am.

How about you? What’s your favorite way to choose a new game? Have you found any tricks for speeding up the process, or making the whole group happier with the results?

About The Author

"Martin Ralya (TT)" is two people: Martin Ralya, the administrator of and a contributor to Gnome Stew, and a time traveler from the years 2005-2007, when he published the Treasure Tables GMing blog (TT). Treasure Tables got started in the early days of RPG blogging, and when Martin burned out trying to run it solo he shut it down, recruited a team of authors, and started Gnome Stew in its place. We moved all TT posts and comments to Gnome Stew in 2012.

(Fred) You left out another way… pick your game first and your players second.

Actually, this one is right up top before the list. 🙂 This list is based on having a group and wanting a new game, not knowing the game but needing a group (which is a different ball of wax).

Adam: I see what you’re getting at, but choosing a game and choosing how to play that game are two different things. In order to be able to change the type of Universalis game you’re playing, you still have to choose to play Universalis in the first place. 😉

We usually have done a combination of #2 and #3, with a dash of #1 always present however. For example, “We are going to play an Arcana Unearthed game, because I just got a 20% discount at the game store by buying 10 copies and ensuring every player has one.” Plus, there are some things that everyone knows are out, as long as I put in the effort to DM. I will not run games using Palladium rules, or long campaigns where the characters are all nilhistic anti-heroes. Nor would the players enjoy it if I did. 🙂

I usually give 3-5 broad options, typically 2-3 from me and the rest as players suggest. Each of the broad options will have a bit of supplemental material, usually in the form of open-ended questions: “If we do this ‘Agents of the King’ campaign, how locked in to the King are the PCs?” (BTW, I pick up most player suggestions from comments in previous campaigns, since my players are shy about such things. The next campaign will have a small element of steam-punk, even though not my personal preference, because of some tendencies I have observed over the last two campaigns.)

The players usually want a homebrew from me, because they have grown accustumed to my quirky campaign development. They tolerate me running a published campaign every other time, since when I stress out I tend to become a killer DM. 😀

It’s all about trade-offs with our group. We all do a fairly decent job of communicating what we *really* want this next campaign versus what we can live with or without. I make sure that when I pull a #1 on one issue, I give corresponding flexibility elsewhere.

There’s an angle between #0 (forming a totally new group) and #1: Choose the game you want to run. Simultaneously invite players from your old group and make a public invitation. In some sense, this may be the most functional way to select a new game (GM is totally invested, players are totally invested).

I tried #2/#3 after I torpedoed my Arcana Unearthed game. I presented a list of possibilities I was interested in, but also invited player suggestions. In the end, it morphed into #1.

Our most recent choice was #3 morphing into #1. I presented RuneQuest, Cold Iron, and new D20 – with a stated strong preference for Cold Iron. Everyone was open to Cold Iron and RQ, one player said he wanted to do something other than D20 (though he was disappointed that the Arcana Evolved campaign was ending) so D20 got knocked off the list. I had just about settled on RQ until I started to not be sure how I wanted to do chargen, and then discovered a new edition is in the works. I floated these issues, and my unsureness, and the player who had said no to D20 said “Let’s just do Cold Iron and save Rune Quest for later.”

So I think in the end, it’s really been #1, but with a discussion phase pretending to be #2/#3 to get player buy in.

Not sure if that’s effective (or totally honest, though my intention has been to be honest – I do want to do RQ again, just not sure the best way to do it right now, and not totally sure that the style of simulationist play I would like to get out of it will fit my current group – which has been playing gamist).

I actually think #3 is better that you present it. Most players I know don’t want to make every single decision. If they did, they’d be GM’s. Instead, they want to know that they are listened to, and that anything which is a huge problem will be eliminated. Often, players are only partially selective. “I’ll play any game where I can be a samurai”

We seem to use a “time delayed” version of #1. Usually a game will start to falter and people will start musing about games to take its place. [Or to share the load… say taking half the sessions of the burdened game.] This usually comes about in conversation about the effort GMing the current game is beginning to take…

Recently, potential GMs made pitches and we picked. We were looking for a game so Dad could play for a while, and two were presented: Ben offered to run d20 Modern, Kev Shadowrun. We drafted Kevin (through negotiaton) and started character gen. Then he ran the session… and Dad found himself “refreshed” and ready to GM again. (To everyone’s satisfaction.)

Maybe that’s a fifth way: have GMs compete for the open slot. [It shares a lot with your Method 2– there’s just more than even a game to pick. Hurt feelings are very possible.]

(CJ) BTW, I pick up most player suggestions from comments in previous campaigns, since my players are shy about such things.

Any idea why they’re shy about this, CJ?

(Frank) There’s an angle between #0 (forming a totally new group) and #1: Choose the game you want to run. Simultaneously invite players from your old group and make a public invitation. In some sense, this may be the most functional way to select a new game (GM is totally invested, players are totally invested).

That’s a good way to put it, Frank. And there’s definitely some wiggle room in these 4 approaches — they’re intentionally broad.

(Rudolf) I actually think #3 is better that you present it.

I tried to be pretty even in my presentation, while staying accurate. Number 3 is one of my favorite approaches, and it has a lot of merit — it’s just not without downsides. 😉

(Scott) Maybe that’s a fifth way: have GMs compete for the open slot. [It shares a lot with your Method 2– there’s just more than even a game to pick. Hurt feelings are very possible.

I’d lump that in with #2, although choosing a GM as well as a game definitely puts a spin on it.

My players are shy because most of them have spent most or even all of their gaming time with me as DM. It would be better for them and me if some of them tried to DM a bit, but it ain’t gonna happen. 🙂 So any kind of situation that suggests they are being put in the “DM chair”, like the overall direction of the main campaign, tends to make them clam up.

OTOH, they have always been willing to come up with all kinds of interesting and wild ideas in the context of characters (theirs, others, or even hypothetical). In fact, collectively, I’d say that my players exercise just about every DM skill, short of basic adventure prep. They just don’t think about it that way. So I can get a lot of good information from them about what they want to do as long as I’m careful how I ask. 😀

Two or maybe three of my players aren’t as like this as the others. However, even they are reticent because of the overall tone of the group.

I don’t adjust foes or adventures because of imaginative guess work by the players–either correct or not. (I will adjust to make things more exciting.) I *do* note any imaginative guess work, keep a list, and try to work it into later adventures or even campaigns.

I was once a GM by Default, but not with the current group. Oh, I admit that I wouldn’t mind playing occasionally, but that is primarily for DM reasons. (I think my biggest flaws as a DM probably stem from not being a player enough.) We do have one guy in our group willing to run an occasional one-shot or even “guest DM” spot in the current campaign.

Heh, I pretty much covered almost all the things you mentioned in that article. Started in ’81 as a teen, was DM because I had the books and the inclination. And I did get to play some in college, though even then I was mostly the DM. After the first 8 years or so, however, I had reached a point where I really was *far* better as a DM than I was as a player.

I have a couple of players that will probably never DM because they have never played for anyone but me (and recently the guy in our group I mentioned above). They started with me about the time I really hit my stride. And they are working on, hmm, 18 years with me now. They’d try too hard to DM as I do, not realizing how much I struggled at first, and never develop their own style.

To bring it back on topic, I think that’s why we really don’t have much trouble getting the #2 and #3 effects, even when we don’t overtly set up the campaign those ways. Heck, there’s usually a pretty solid second choice from the last time we decided, that may still look fun.

There is a 5th way. Random. List the games you want to play. Assign each one a number, and roll for it. We did this once. 1. D&D 2. Star Wars 3. Heroes 4. D20 Modern. We’ve been playing Star Wars for over a year. It’s worked out pretty well. We will probably wrap up the campaign in December, and everyone is talking about rolling again (although we may replace Star Wars with Iron Heros or something).

(Avarri) There is a 5th way. Random. List the games you want to play. Assign each one a number, and roll for it.

This sounds like a fun variation on #3, a bit more structured than the “throw darts” approach I mentioned after the list. It looks like you picked broadly similar games, which probably helped lead to a positive outcome — I’m assuming your group enjoys d20, and therefore would be up for most d20 games.

I ususally like to make a new world instead of using the worlds presented in the different rules-sets and therefore I decide the world. When it comes to the rules though, I mostly use #3, letting the players choose what rules they want to play with, be it D10 (ala vampire), D20, Warhammer RPG rules etc.

Depending on the group I play, the players sometimes throws the question back to me and I must choose the rule-set as well.

Our approach is to just try several things and see what sticks. At the moment, the group is enjoying a loose framework for a couple of simple, mostly improvised adventures to much that they want to continue with it. The same happened to a very low-key Shadowrun thingy with prefab characters GMed by another guy, but he doesn’t have a lot of time to GM these days.

Some other campaigns I tried didn’t make it. So generally, it starts out as #1 and then turns into #2 where it catches on with the group or not, although some suggestions were shot down because we have way too many campaigns running already.

I actually want to GM or play in a Traveller campaign, or perhaps do a bit of Call of Cthulhu, but my group doesn’t want to.

(Daneic) I ususally like to make a new world instead of using the worlds presented in the different rules-sets and therefore I decide the world. When it comes to the rules though, I mostly use #3…

I’ve never run into this approach before, Daneic, although I agree that it sounds like a mix of #1 and #2. The closest I’ve come is in our recent round of “What game are we going to play?” when there was some general interest in a WWII game, but not in any of the systems that tend to be attached to WWII games. 😉

(mcv) Our approach is to just try several things and see what sticks.

I think this one would drive me nuts as a GM, because of the level of investment I like to have in what I’m running. It’s an interesting take on the process though — I’m glad it works for you. 🙂

I have tried the throw the mud on the wall and see if it sticks. Such a tryout led to one of my longer running college campaigns. I had picked up Fantasy Hero over the summer, and tried it out with my old group the first Friday evening back at college (as a break from my Cold Iron gaming). We had also got an add into the first college paper of the year for a Saturday meeting. I showed up Saturday with Fantasy Hero still in my backpack. About 30 people showed up for the meeting (like more people than we had ever HAD in the club before). There was some general mayhem, and then people started announcing campaigns they could run. I said I had Fantasy Hero ready to go and we could start creating characters that day (I was the ONLY one ready to actually play). Before long, we were sharing the book between like six folks. I forget if we actually had time to run, but the next weekend, we definitely ran (and had picked up some more players). Within a few weeks, we were up to 12 players, with at least 10 showing up every time.

Eventually I discovered Fantasy Hero really didn’t work well, and it took a long time to run battles. So we converted the characters to Cold Iron. That didn’t work out either (not hard core gamist players), so we converted the game to D&D.

I used to really like trying out new systems. I still would like to do so, but it’s hard to get enough players together to try things out (that worked best in college when we played Friday night, Saturday all day, and any other time we could get a few people together [there was almost always a couple gamers hanging out upstairs in the student union]).

Martin wrote: I think this one would drive me nuts as a GM, because of the level of investment I like to have in what I’m running.

My experience is that pinning a new campaign down before it starts rarely works. Either the players don’t like it, or it just doesn’t quite work out the way you planned, or some much better idea comes along. I’ve had really big, epic campaigns not survive their second session, and simple, loose, one-time adventures turn into an entire campaign. It’s hard to predict what works, so I just focus on a single adventure, and if it works, I can always turn it into a big campaign later on.

That said, I do have a couple of ideas for a big Traveller campaign and a big CoC campaign, but if I ever do get around to starting those campaigns, I’m gonna make damn sure I’m gonna focus on just the first adventure at first, and make that fun. Don’t plan too far ahead; high expectations are just an invitation to disappointment. IME, ofcourse.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to this comment thread via email (we'll send you updates)

Name *

Email *

Website

What’s Gnome Stew

Written by a team of veteran Gamers and Gamemasters, Gnome Stew is a widely read gaming blog with multiple awards and thousands of articles. We're dedicated to helping gamers have more fun at the gaming table.